QUALITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS

Comparison of qualitative & quantitative research

Qualitative

Quantitative

Definitions

a systematic subjective approach

used to describe life experiences and
give them meaning

a formal, objective, systematic

process for obtaining
information about the world. A
method used to describe, test
relationships, and examine
cause and effect relationships.

Goals

To gain insight; explore the depth,

richness, and complexity inherent in
the phenomenon.

To test relationships, describe,

examine cause and effect
relations

Characteristics

Soft science
Focus: complex & broad
Holistic
Subjective
Dialectic, inductive
reasoning
Basis of knowing: meaning
& discovery
Develops theory
Shared interpretation
Communication &
observation
Basic element of analysis:
words
Individual interpretation
Uniqueness

Hard science
Focus: concise & narrow
Reductionistic
Objective
Logistic, deductive reasoning
Basis of knowing: cause &
effect, relationships
Tests theory
Control
Instruments
Basic element of analysis:
numbers
Statistical analysis
Generalization

Specific qualitative approaches

Phenomenology
Purpose, goal - to describe experiences as they are lived

examines uniqueness of individual's lived situations

each person has own reality; reality is subjective

Research question development

What does existence of feeling or experience indicate concerning

the phenomenon to be explored
What are necessary & sufficient constituents of feeling or
experience?
What is the nature of the human being?

No clearly defined steps to avoid limiting creativity of researcher

Sampling & data collection

Method

Seek persons who understand study & are willing to

express inner feelings & experiences
Describe experiences of phenomenon

Write experiences of phenomenon

Direct observation
Audio or videotape

Data analysis

Classify & rank data

Sense of wholeness
Examine experiences beyond human awareness/ or cannot be
communicated

Findings described from subject's point-of-view

Researcher identifies themes
Structural explanation of findings is developed

Outcomes

Grounded theory
Purpose - theory development

Used in discovering what problems exist in a social scene &how persons

handle them
Involves formulation, testing, & redevelopment of propositions until a theory
is developed

Method - steps occur simultaneously; a constant comparative process

Data collection - interview, observation, record review, or combination

Concept formation
Concept development - reduction; selective sampling of literature; selective
sampling of subjects; emergence of core concepts
Concept modification & integration

Analysis

Outcomes - theory supported by examples from data

Ethnography
Purpose - to describe a culture's characteristics
Method

Identify culture, variables for study, & review literature

Data collection - gain entrance to culture; immerse self in culture; acquire
informants; gather data through direct observation & interaction with subjects

Analysis - describe characteristics of culture

Outcomes - description of culture
Historical
Purpose - describe and examine events of the past to understand the present and anticipate
potential future effects
Method

Formulate idea - select topic after reading related literature

Develop research questions

Develop an inventory of sources - archives, private libraries, papers
Clarify validity & reliability of data - primary sources, authenticity, biases
Develop research outline to organize investigative process
Collect data

Analysis - synthesis of all data; accept & reject data; reconcile conflicting evidence
Outcomes - select means of presentation - biography, chronology, issue paper
Case study
Purpose - describe in-depth the experience of one person, family, group, community, or
institution
Method

Direct observation and interaction with subject

Analysis - synthesis of experience

Outcomes - in-depth description of the experience
Data collection

Interview with audiotape & videotape

Direct, non-participant observation
Participant observation
Field notes, journals, logs
Reliability & validity - rigor

Use of researcher's personality

Involvement with subject's experience

Live with data collection until no new information appears

Bracketing

Researcher suspends what is known about the phenomenon

Keeping an open context
Set aside own preconceptions

Intuiting

Process of actually looking at phenomenon

Focus all awareness & energy on topic
Absolute concentration & complete absorption in phenomenon

Can use > 1 researcher & compare interpretation and analysis of data
Data analysis

Living with data

Cluster & categorize data
Examine concepts & themes
Define relationships between/among concepts
_______________________________________________________________________

Qualitative Data

Qualitative data is extremely varied in nature. It includes virtually any information that can be captured that
is not numerical in nature. Here are some of the major categories or types:
In-Depth Interviews
In-Depth Interviews include both individual interviews (e.g., one-on-one) as well as "group" interviews
(including focus groups). The data can be recorded in a wide variety of ways including stenography, audio
recording, video recording or written notes. In depth interviews differ from direct observation primarily in
the nature of the interaction. In interviews it is assumed that there is a questioner and one or more
interviewees. The purpose of the interview is to probe the ideas of the interviewees about the phenomenon of
interest.
Direct Observation
Direct observation is meant very broadly here. It differs from interviewing in that the observer does not
actively query the respondent. It can include everything from field research where one lives in another
context or culture for a period of time to photographs that illustrate some aspect of the phenomenon. The data
can be recorded in many of the same ways as interviews (stenography, audio, video) and through pictures,
photos or drawings (e.g., those courtroom drawings of witnesses are a form of direct observation).
Written Documents
Usually this refers to existing documents (as opposed transcripts of interviews conducted for the research). It
can include newspapers, magazines, books, websites, memos, transcripts of conversations, annual reports,
and so on. Usually written documents are analyzed with some form of content analysis.
Qualitative Approaches
A qualitative "approach" is a general way of thinking about conducting qualitative research. It describes,
either explicitly or implicitly, the purpose of the qualitative research, the role of the researcher(s), the stages
of research, and the method of data analysis. here, four of the major qualitative approaches are introduced.
Ethnography
The ethnographic approach to qualitative research comes largely from the field of anthropology. The
emphasis in ethnography is on studying an entire culture. Originally, the idea of a culture was tied to the
notion of ethnicity and geographic location (e.g., the culture of the Trobriand Islands), but it has been
broadened to include virtually any group or organization. That is, we can study the "culture" of a business or
defined group (e.g., a Rotary club).
Ethnography is an extremely broad area with a great variety of practitioners and methods. However, the most
common ethnographic approach is participant observation as a part of field research. The ethnographer
becomes immersed in the culture as an active participant and records extensive field notes. As in grounded
theory, there is no preset limiting of what will be observed and no real ending point in an ethnographic study.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology is sometimes considered a philosophical perspective as well as an approach to qualitative
methodology. It has a long history in several social research disciplines including psychology, sociology and
social work. Phenomenology is a school of thought that emphasizes a focus on people's subjective
experiences and interpretations of the world. That is, the phenomenologist wants to understand how the
world appears to others.
Field Research

Field research can also be considered either a broad approach to qualitative research or a method of gathering
qualitative data. the essential idea is that the researcher goes "into the field" to observe the phenomenon in its
natural state or in situ. As such, it is probably most related to the method of participant observation. The field
researcher typically takes extensive field notes which are subsequently coded and analyzed in a variety of
ways.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that was originally developed by Glaser and Strauss in the
1960s. The self-defined purpose of grounded theory is to develop theory about phenomena of interest. But
this is not just abstract theorizing they're talking about. Instead the theory needs to be grounded or rooted in
observation -- hence the term.
Grounded theory is a complex iterative process. The research begins with the raising of generative questions
which help to guide the research but are not intended to be either static or confining. As the researcher begins
to gather data, core theoretical concept(s) are identified. Tentative linkages are developed between the
theoretical core concepts and the data. This early phase of the research tends to be very open and can take
months. Later on the researcher is more engaged in verification and summary. The effort tends to evolve
toward one core category that is central.
There are several key analytic strategies:
Coding is a process for both categorizing qualitative data and for describing the implications and details of
these categories. Initially one does open coding, considering the data in minute detail while developing some
initial categories. Later, one moves to more selective coding where one systematically codes with respect to a
core concept.
Memoing is a process for recording the thoughts and ideas of the researcher as they evolve throughout the
study. You might think of memoing as extensive marginal notes and comments. Again, early in the process
these memos tend to be very open while later on they tend to increasingly focus in on the core concept.
Integrative diagrams and sessions are used to pull all of the detail together, to help make sense of the data
with respect to the emerging theory. The diagrams can be any form of graphic that is useful at that point in
theory development. They might be concept maps or directed graphs or even simple cartoons that can act as
summarizing devices. This integrative work is best done in group sessions where different members of the
research team are able to interact and share ideas to increase insight.
Eventually one approaches conceptually dense theory as new observation leads to new linkages which lead to
revisions in the theory and more data collection. The core concept or category is identified and fleshed out in
detail.
When does this process end? One answer is: never! Clearly, the process described above could continue
indefinitely. Grounded theory doesn't have a clearly demarcated point for ending a study. Essentially, the
project ends when the researcher decides to quit.
What do you have when you're finished? Presumably you have an extremely well-considered explanation for
some phenomenon of interest -- the grounded theory. This theory can be explained in words and is usually
presented with much of the contextually relevant detail collected.
There are a wide variety of methods that are common in qualitative measurement. In fact, the methods are
largely limited by the imagination of the researcher. Here I discuss a few of the more common methods.
Participant Observation
One of the most common methods for qualitative data collection, participant observation is also one of the
most demanding. It requires that the researcher become a participant in the culture or context being observed.

The literature on participant observation discusses how to enter the context, the role of the researcher as a
participant, the collection and storage of field notes, and the analysis of field data. Participant observation
often requires months or years of intensive work because the researcher needs to become accepted as a
natural part of the culture in order to assure that the observations are of the natural phenomenon.
Direct Observation
Direct observation is distinguished from participant observation in a number of ways. First, a direct observer
doesn't typically try to become a participant in the context. However, the direct observer does strive to be as
unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias the observations. Second, direct observation suggests a more
detached perspective. The researcher is watching rather than taking part. Consequently, technology can be a
useful part of direct observation. For instance, one can videotape the phenomenon or observe from behind
one-way mirrors. Third, direct observation tends to be more focused than participant observation. The
researcher is observing certain sampled situations or people rather than trying to become immersed in the
entire context. Finally, direct observation tends not to take as long as participant observation. For instance,
one might observe child-mother interactions under specific circumstances in a laboratory setting from behind
a one-way mirror, looking especially for the nonverbal cues being used.
Unstructured Interviewing
Unstructured interviewing involves direct interaction between the researcher and a respondent or group. It
differs from traditional structured interviewing in several important ways. First, although the researcher may
have some initial guiding questions or core concepts to ask about, there is no formal structured instrument or
protocol. Second, the interviewer is free to move the conversation in any direction of interest that may come
up. Consequently, unstructured interviewing is particularly useful for exploring a topic broadly. However,
there is a price for this lack of structure. Because each interview tends to be unique with no predetermined set
of questions asked of all respondents, it is usually more difficult to analyze unstructured interview data,
especially when synthesizing across respondents.
Case Studies
A case study is an intensive study of a specific individual or specific context. For instance, Freud developed
case studies of several individuals as the basis for the theory of psychoanalysis and Piaget did case studies of
children to study developmental phases. There is no single way to conduct a case study, and a combination of
methods (e.g., unstructured interviewing, direct observation) can be used.

Qualitative Validity
Depending on their philosophical perspectives, some qualitative researchers reject the framework
of validitythat is commonly accepted in more quantitative research in the social sciences. They reject the
basic realist assumption that their is a reality external to our perception of it. Consequently, it doesn't
make sense to be concerned with the "truth" or "falsity" of an observation with respect to an external
reality (which is a primary concern of validity). These qualitative researchers argue for different
standards for judging the quality of research.
For instance, Guba and Lincoln proposed four criteria for judging the soundness of qualitative research
and explicitly offered these as an alternative to more traditional quantitatively-oriented criteria. They felt
that their four criteria better reflected the underlying assumptions involved in much qualitative research.
Their proposed criteria and the "analogous" quantitative criteria are listed in the table.
Traditional Criteria for Judging
Alternative Criteria for Judging
Quantitative Research
Qualitative Research
internal validity
credibility
external validity

transferability

reliability

dependability

objectivity

confirmability

Credibility
The credibility criteria involves establishing that the results of qualitative research are credible or
believable from the perspective of the participant in the research. Since from this perspective, the purpose
of qualitative research is to describe or understand the phenomena of interest from the participant's eyes,
the participants are the only ones who can legitimately judge the credibility of the results.
Transferability
Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be generalized or
transferred to other contexts or settings. From a qualitative perspective transferability is primarily the
responsibility of the one doing the generalizing. The qualitative researcher can enhance transferability by
doing a thorough job of describing the research context and the assumptions that were central to the
research. The person who wishes to "transfer" the results to a different context is then responsible for
making the judgment of how sensible the transfer is.
Dependability
The traditional quantitative view of reliability is based on the assumption of replicability or repeatability.
Essentially it is concerned with whether we would obtain the same results if we could observe the same
thing twice. But we can't actually measure the same thing twice -- by definition if we are measuring twice,
we are measuring two different things. In order to estimate reliability, quantitative researchers construct
various hypothetical notions (e.g., true score theory) to try to get around this fact.
The idea of dependability, on the other hand, emphasizes the need for the researcher to account for the
ever-changing context within which research occurs. The research is responsible for describing the
changes that occur in the setting and how these changes affected the way the research approached the
study.
Confirmability
Qualitative research tends to assume that each researcher brings a unique perspective to the study.
Confirmability refers to the degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others.
There are a number of strategies for enhancing confirmability. The researcher can document the
procedures for checking and rechecking the data throughout the study. Another researcher can take a
"devil's advocate" role with respect to the results, and this process can be documented. The researcher can
actively search for and describe and negative instances that contradict prior observations. And, after he
study, one can conduct a data audit that examines the data collection and analysis procedures and makes
judgements about the potential for bias or distortion.

There has been considerable debate among methodologists about the value and legitimacy of this
alternative set of standards for judging qualitative research. On the one hand, many quantitative
researchers see the alternative criteria as just a relabeling of the very successful quantitative criteria in
order to accrue greater legitimacy for qualitative research. They suggest that a correct reading of the
quantitative criteria would show that they are not limited to quantitative research alone and can be applied
equally well to qualitative data. They argue that the alternative criteria represent a different philosophical
perspective that is subjectivist rather than realist in nature. They claim that research inherently assumes
that there is some reality that is being observed and can be observed with greater or less accuracy or
validity. if you don't make this assumption, they would contend, you simply are not engaged in research
(although that doesn't mean that what you are doing is not valuable or useful).

Perhaps there is some legitimacy to this counter argument. Certainly a broad reading of the traditional
quantitative criteria might make them appropriate to the qualitative realm as well. But historically the
traditional quantitative criteria have been described almost exclusively in terms of quantitative research.
No one has yet done a thorough job of translating how the same criteria might apply in qualitative
research contexts. For instance, the discussions of external validity have been dominated by the idea of
statistical sampling as the basis for generalizing. And, considerations of reliability have traditionally been
inextricably linked to the notion of true score theory.
But qualitative researchers do have a point about the irrelevance of traditional quantitative criteria. How
could we judge the external validity of a qualitative study that does not use formalized sampling methods?
And, how can we judge the reliability of qualitative data when there is no mechanism for estimating the
true score? No one has adequately explained how the operational procedures used to assess validity and
reliability in quantitative research can be translated into legitimate corresponding operations for
qualitative research.
While alternative criteria may not in the end be necessary (and I personally hope that more work is done
on broadening the "traditional" criteria so that they legitimately apply across the entire spectrum of
research approaches), and they certainly can be confusing for students and newcomers to this discussion,
these alternatives do serve to remind us that qualitative research cannot easily be considered only an
extension of the quantitative paradigm into the realm of nonnumeric data.
Dr Sabariah
1. researchers as instrument
2. data mendahului teori (inductive)
3. ethical issues in qualitative research
4. sampling in qualitative research
5. types of interviews
6. types of observations
7. grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, action research, ethnography
8.triangulation
Dr Lay
1. sampling methods (Huraian & contoh)
2. internal validity (ancaman kepada kesahan)
Past year
Bahagian C/Jawab 1
1. Terangkan 3 jeni temuduga dalam kajian kualitatif
a) Mengapa memilih temu duga dalam kajian anda?
b) Apakah prosedur yang diguna dalam menjalan temuduga?
c) Jelaskan maksud kump fokus
d) Mengapa guna kump fokus dalam kajian anda?
2. A) Bincangkan konsep penyelidikan kualitatif
B) Senaraikan dan terangkan scr ringkas paradigma dalam penyelidikan kualitatif
3. Kepentingan sorotan kajian
Senaraikan langkah menjalankan sorotan kajian.
Bahagian B1
1. Jelaskan sumbangsaran 1 tajuk kualitatif dan selepas itu sertakan tajuk kajian tersebut.
2. Terangkan secara ringkas semua reka bentuk penyelidikan kualitaif di bawah
I.
Kajian etnografi
II.
Kajian kes
III.
Fenomenologi
IV.
Grounded theory

Bahagian B2
1. Pilih satu pendekatan yang sangat sesuai untuk tajuk kajian anda, mengapa?
2. Apakah strategi pemugutan data (data collection tools) yang sesuai digunakan dalam kajian di atas
3. Bincangkan secara ringkas tentang prosedur beretiak dalam menjalankan kajian anda tersebut.
Bahagian A
2a) nyatakan saling kaitan antara 1 binaan konstruk kajian pembolehubah dan definisi operasional
kajian.
b) jelaskan prosedur bagi memastikan kesahan kandungan dan 1 dalaman bg sebarang instrumen
yang dipilih untuk penyelidikan.
3 pemilihan sampel merupakan usaha teliti memilih responden mewakili populasi. Namun
perbezaan pendekatan kajian yang diguna pakai bagi menyelesaikan masalah kajian membolehkan
penyelidik melaksanakan beberapa pemilihan teknikpemilihan sampel bukan kebarangkalian bagi
memilih responden kajian. Merujuk kepada permaslahan berikut huraikan dua teknik pemilihan
sampel rawak dan dua teknik pemilihan sampel bukan kebarangkalian yang boleh dilaksanakan
oleh seseorang penyelidik memilih responden kajian. (25)
Kajian bertujuan mengkaji kesan permainan audio visual terhadap peningkaan koordinasi mata
tangan bagi menaip menggunakan papan kekunci komputer dalam kalangan pelakjar jurusan ICT
sebuah kolej komuniti.